Welch: 638 does what critics say it can’t — protect girls without banning anyone

Published 1:30 am Saturday, August 1, 2026

The loudest argument against Initiative 638 is not about sports at all. It is about a medical exam the initiative does not require.

U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal says 638 forces “invasive, disgusting exams on every girl who wants to play a sport.” The No Hate in WA State campaign warns of “invasive, medically unnecessary and harmful genital exams.” Powerful lines. Also, not what the measure says.

Here is the actual text, filed with the Secretary of State. A student who wants to play girls’ sports submits documentation from her own healthcare provider confirming her sex. The provider relies on any one or more of three things, in the initiative’s words, “reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.” One or more. A genetic marker satisfies it. A hormone level satisfies it. Neither requires the kind of exam the opposition describes. No school official inspects a child. No coach is in the room. A doctor signs a form, the same doctor who already signs the sports physical every Washington athlete gets before the season.

So the centerpiece of the opposition case is a scenario the law does not mandate. Set it aside, and the rest of the arguments shrink fast.

Take the “blanket ban.” Opponents call 638 a ban. Read it again. It bans no one from playing sports. Boys’ teams stay open. Co-ed competition stays open. What the measure protects is one category, the girls’ category, from male physical advantage. Sorting athletes is not excluding them. We sort by weight in wrestling and by age in youth leagues, and nobody calls a heavyweight bracket a ban on lightweights.

Then there is the “only a handful” argument. Opponents say very few transgender girls compete, so there is no real problem. That cuts against them. If the numbers are small, the disruption from restoring a clear rule is small too. And fairness never ran on a head count. One girl who places second in a race she would have won, one roster spot, one finish that decides a scholarship, that is not a rounding error to the girl it happens to. A rule is measured by whether it holds when it is tested, not by how often.

The privacy worry deserves a straight answer, not a dodge. Medical documentation is exactly that, medical, handled by a provider and a school the way health records already are. The initiative does not put a child’s body on display. It asks for a signed statement, and it gives providers more than one way to produce it.

The law is also settling in one direction, and Washington is now the outlier. On June 30, in West Virginia v. B.P.J., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that Title IX lets schools field separate girls’ and boys’ teams defined by biological sex. As of this spring, 27 states have adopted sex-verification rules for school sports, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Washington still assigns girls’ teams by gender identity under a policy in place since 2007. Voters get to decide whether that stays.

None of this means the students on the other side of the question do not matter. They do. A yes vote owes them an answer to a fair question: where do I play? Washington can find that answer. Open divisions and co-ed leagues already exist here and in other states, and we can build more. Protect the girls’ category first, then make sure no kid is left with nowhere to compete. Both commitments fit on the same ballot.

This measure earned its place the hard way, with 445,187 signatures submitted against a requirement of 308,911, according to the Secretary of State’s office. Hundreds of thousands of neighbors asked for this vote. Now it is here.

No athletes are banned. Girls keep fair play and their spots on their teams. Washington can protect girls’ sports and provide leagues for every student who wants to compete. The scare stories do not survive the text.

Vote yes on 638.

Todd Welch is a Herald columnist covering local and state issues.